Evolution and Metaphor

>>>>>my question is how exactly can anyone know the age of the bones. Now before you tell me all the mechanics of it you must be honest and say that it requires some level of faith to accept the date of something that goes so far beyond recorded time that you can never actually prove if it is correct. Having put your trust in a scientific experiment to set that date why not simply put your faith in God and His word, He wont let you down.
Murph<<<<<<

It seems that you have never really studied the numerous methods that give an ancient age for the earth and for fossils. I don't think that "faith" is an appropriate term for the substantial confidence in the dating methods. For instance, 3 entirely independent methods agree on the age of the solar system, of about 4.5 billion years. Other methods give consistently old methods for ages of fossils and the rocks in which they are found. So it is not a matter of faith, but of apparently accurate results based on dependable methods. When the technical objections of creationists are considered, these objections are found to be without merit.

Quite often, there is a substantial amount of deceit and mistaken information presented by creationists. [snipped for personal attack - not allowed. Remember debate the issue, not the people.]

[ October 27, 2003, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

Notice the key word here "APPARENTLY" now ladies and gentlemen if there really was proof would my learned friend have to use the word "APPARENTLY".
Boggles the mind!!!!
Murph

 

Note two things about this verse:

1 - It applies to the OT only (the NT had not yet been completed. But, since Gen is OT, that's a non-issue here.

2 - The verse DOES NOT say that scripture is to be used as a documentation of factual account in all areas. It only says it's profitable for instruction in reghetousness. </font>[/QUOTE]Now John do you really believe that Paul as led by the Spirit to write what he did was not also being led of the Spirit to include his own writings. I am not saying that he knew he was writing teh new testament but God did. And by your view of profitable for doctrine you feel more inclined to believe God is saying that much of what has been included in the bible is not true but if you can get some spiritual food out of it then go ahead. Sorry I don't buy it.
Murph

 

What I'm saying is that, when Pauls recorded the aforementioned verse, he was referring to the OT. There are several writings of the NT that had not yet been penned until after Paul penned these words. Of course, as Christians, we believe that the NT is inspired to the same level as the OT, but it need not be necessary for Paul to refer to the yet unwritten and uncompiled NT for the NT to be so.

This is such typical "my way of the highway" fundamentalist hyperspeak. That's not what I'm saying at all. Just because Paul wasn't referring to the NT doesn't mean that the I believe the NT isn't inspired and prifitable for doctrine. On the contrary. Stop putting words in other peoples' mouths. I believe the NT is inspired and profitable as much as the OT. I simply choose not to add to the Bible by putting words in Paul's mouth to support my belief.

 

This is such typical "my way of the highway" fundamentalist hyperspeak. That's not what I'm saying at all. Just because Paul wasn't referring to the NT doesn't mean that the I believe the NT isn't inspired and prifitable for doctrine. On the contrary. Stop putting words in other peoples' mouths. I believe the NT is inspired and profitable as much as the OT. I simply choose not to add to the Bible by putting words in Paul's mouth to support my belief. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]If you believe it to be inspired why did you raise the question. Do you have anything to
add or are you simply trying to stir the pot.
Murph

 

Notice the key word here "APPARENTLY" now ladies and gentlemen if there really was proof would my learned friend have to use the word "APPARENTLY".
Boggles the mind!!!!
Murph </font>[/QUOTE]HE SAID APPARENTLY HE MUST BE TOTALLY UNSURE AND THEREFORE WRONG~~~!

Is this what passes for discourse these days?

 

Another thread where Christian love and respect is abounding! Wow!

NeilUnreal claims Genesis is myth. Since it is the foundation for every major doctrine in the Bible, where does that put those doctrines? And what does that say about the writers of the many books in the Bible who considered it to be history? That's a slippery slope, indeed, Neil... By saying that man can decide what parts of the Bible he deems true, you are saying you are putting your judgment of God in place of His Word. I don't think I would like to be in that position when face to face with the Lord.

Paul of Eugene has seen stars and galaxies. I'm glad he's looking up! However there are a lot more physicists than my husband who are now declaring the speed of light has not been a constant! If this is true, you don't know how long it took that light to get here, Paul. In addition, the atomic dates are governed by atomic processes, the same way the speed of light is. If these atomic processes have changed their rates, which many years' measurements of things like Planck's Constant and the rest mass of the electron indicate has happened, then atomic dating is running at a different rate than the orbital dating system we use in our calendars. Thus, until these two systems can be corrected to be in harmony, it is best not to get too definitive about what radiometric decay dates are showing us. It very well may be that it is precisely because these dates are not accurate that God told us, in Genesis 1:14, to use the astronomical bodies as our time keepers -- our rate of rotation and revolution are much steadier than atomic rates.

JohnV used the phrase that 'with God all things are possible.' No one is disputing that, John. But we also consider that He is telling us the truth when He caused to be written what He actually did choose to do! What you seem to be saying, in effect, is "Lord, you can do anything you want to do, and so because I disagree with what the Bible says you did, I know you did it another way -- since you can do anything you want to do. Therefore I assume that you did it in a way that I will agree with and understand!" Think about it, John -- that is what you are saying.

Nor is it adding to the Bible to say that the days from the beginning were 24 hour days. The hours were added by man as divisions of day and night sometime after creation. So if you were to describe a 24 hour day without using the term 'hour' or 'hours' or 'minutes' etc., how would you do it? Probably by using such terminology as 'evening' and 'morning', right? That would indicate the revolution of the earth on its axis regarding a light source. Now, if the earth were rotating more slowly than it does now, it would get too hot and too cold for life. So as long as the Lord has chosen to use 'evening' and 'morning' as signifiers as to the length of the days of Genesis 1, I think we are quite safe in saying the earth was rotating at very close to the same speed it is now, right from the beginning, and that those days were indeed the same length as our days now.

In addition, John, 2 Timothy was written near the end of Paul's life. By that time the gospels had been written and Paul's own letters already declared Scripture by Peter. So I am quite sure not just the OT is implied by Paul's words to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16. It would also be good for you to have finished the sentence given by Paul there when you made your second point. Here is the complete sentence:

AllScripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Teaching what? Certainly the truth of Scripture?

Rebuking what? Incorrect interpretation of Scripture among other things?

Correcting what? Misunderstandings about Scripture, perhaps?

And THEN comes 'training in righteousness.'

It seems Scripture is good for a lot more than that last point, eh?

The good work that we do is the work God has given us to do -- individually, using the talents and skills He gave us. We do different things. Some teach science. That is a good work. However teaching science in opposition to God's Word does not qualify as a good work, I'm afraid. For here we have it that it is Scripture that equips us for good work...

There's just no way out of the fact that the foundation of our lives and all we do and say and think and are should be Scripture and the Lord God Himself, whose Word it is. That is why it was written.

However, just for the sake of argument, even if the New Testament is left out of the reference in 2 Timothy 3:16, Genesis remains. And it remains a true and clear account of what God did, and when. We can choose God's Word or man's interpretations.

Clue 1, man's interpretations changes constantly.

Clue 2, the Bible keeps proving itself accurate in all areas it can be checked.

 

Many thanks to my learned sister Helen.
God bless you for your insight on these issues.
Murph

 

We've been around and around that tired old horse many times. Setterfield faster than light theory has been proven false. In particular, the orbital speeds you claim to have remained constant while the light speed was not constant, are seen to remain at the same percentage of the speed of light throughout the cosmos. This is directly observable in measuring the rate of galactic rotations, as well as by other means.

The simplest explanation is that light speed has not changed signifigantly and neither has the speed of gravitational orbiting. But if you want to make light faster in the past, then the observations are that orbits were also faster, and that would include earth's orbit, and earth would have gone around the sun millions of times anyway, which would mean millions of years anyway, which is a pointless exercise for your theory!

Here's a link to some of the rock solid evidence of rotation of galaxies as a percent of the speed of light:

http://www.epud.net/~richmond/science/grotate/grotate.htm

 

Blood letting with leeches should still be used until science can prove their point on that stupid mold/penicillin theory they have. There have been thousands of medical doctors that have used blood letting for years and so we are right to fight this evil science that has never proved itself in this one area of medicine.

Sure science is right about most things, but not on those issues that I don't want them to be right on. Next, they will be claiming the world is more than 6000 years old. Silly Fools!